Posted by examinerebb on 3/7/2013 2:32:00 PM (view original):I'm sure it was Rand trying to up his profile. That said, it should be hard for anyone not to be concerned that the U.S. government has said that they can kill American citizens on American soil without due process, and has given almost no guidelines under which that power may or may not be executed. Whatever his reasons for doing it may be, and as ridiculous as the idea of fillibuster may be, there are more people demanding answers about those drone strikes today than there were two days ago. I'm not sure how else that level of national awareness could have been acheived.

That's fair, actually. You believe in a particular issue so much, and this is a way to gain attention for it.

The issue on what he was talking about isn't my point, though. The filibuster itself is a waste of time. If the filibuster was illegal, I'm confident Rand would have found another way to draw attention to the issue.

Fair, maybe.

But, in today's media-driven world, getting attention to a cause isn't difficult. I'm sure there was another way. But it was effective.

I hear what you're saying, but I think today's media-driven world makes us numb to a lot of what we hear/read/see. We're getting different information on different topics via a crapload of different television stations, radio stations, news websites, Twitter, Facebook, etc. And just about none of it is without an agenda. A couple of times I've dismissed a story initially, then later pulled an "Oh, **** - that was true." He ground government to a halt (symbolically), and that made a ton of different people with different agendas want to know why. He could have held a press conference, but that's not making the top half of any non-Libertarian news website. I doubt it would have appeared anywhere on my local 6:00 television news. Short of standing at the gates of the white house naked with an RPG, it would have been difficult to get the spotlight where he got it by way of the fillibuster.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 3/7/2013 7:08:00 PM (view original):The fillibuster rule has a long history and serves a specific purpose.

If you are a slimmer majority, under 60, you need to make a deal to get the vote.

If you dont have one with only 100 guys you can get 51 guys doing whatever they want.

51 elected representatives doing whatever they want, provided it passes the House and presidential veto powers. And then they answer for it come election time. The checks and balances are already there.

Posted by moosep on 3/7/2013 8:42:00 PM (view original):I think the President should of closed down all bathrooms within 5 miles of the place where the filibuster was taking place. I don't think they would be trying that crap again.

He could have and blamed it on the mean Republicans who forced the sequester cuts.

The fillibuster makes it harder for the government to impose its power on the people.

No matter who is in power.

So elected official = government imposing its power on the people? Who do elected officials represent? (OK, who are they supposed to represent). So you are saying that you want a Legislative and Executive Branch, elected by the people, to do as little as possible? Is that why people vote for someone...so they won't do anything?

Are you afraid of the concept of majority rule? Or just when it disagrees with your point of view?

The fillibuster makes it harder for the government to impose its power on the people.

No matter who is in power.

So elected official = government imposing its power on the people? Who do elected officials represent? (OK, who are they supposed to represent). So you are saying that you want a Legislative and Executive Branch, elected by the people, to do as little as possible? Is that why people vote for someone...so they won't do anything?

Are you afraid of the concept of majority rule? Or just when it disagrees with your point of view?

The system is a Constitutional Republic.

The Federal Government is supposed to be controlled.

The left has fought for more and more power for the Central Government so they can promote their agenda without having to get the majority of America behind them.